How Does Believing In God Give Us Purpose?

[agnosticator]

Rayskydude: By our nature, we will pursue our own goals - this is sin (Isaiah 53:6). This does not mean that people cannot and will not do acts of service for others - we all have human sensibilities that are God-given. We all feel the responsibility to love others and we are feel compassion for those who are suffering and we want to alleviate that to some degree. And we sometimes wish we could do more for others. But we are incapable of much that is truly and completely selfless. Can we say without reserve that all our good deeds are in no way motivated by societal pressure, or salving our own conscience, or ingratiating someone to help us in the future, or trying to win God's favor?

We all recognize this 'weakness' in ourselves - and we wish we could change ourselves, but we cannot change our nature. And often, we're blind to our own sinful condition, we think we're fine, that we're just human like everyone else.

 

"All our righteousness are but filthy rags", so what good people do is considered (pardon me ladies) used kotex. Human nature is capable of both good and bad, but there ARE people who commit completely unselfish acts. "Sin" doesn't exist but within christianity, in order to setup its doctrines of salvation, reward, and punishment. All this doesn't help people to solve their own problems in life, or to make them better people. It excuses their moral failings and promises them eternal life in exchange for belief, which is SELFISH. If there were no reward for believers, would they believe?

 

The filthy garment stated by Isaiah in Ch 64:6 is a comparative term if you check the context. In comparison to all the good that God has done, anything we would do would be a filthy garment by comparison. This term also applies to the various motivations I mentioned that we might have for our good works - motivations that had a degree of selfishness in them.

 

I disagree because there are people who do totally unselfish acts everyday.

 

I think all people acknowledge the principle of sin = and that we all suffer from it. We just don't know what to do to 'cure' our condition.

 

"Sin" is a christian term. Not all people even recognize it. There is no "sin" condition or reason for christianity today aside from christians who buy into it.

 

And Christianity doesn't excuse moral failings - it condemns moral failings and urges repentance from sin and a pursuit of holy living. It instructs us to be like Jesus Himself in mercy, love, forgiveness, service, helping others with charity, etc.

 

I realize that, but in order for a christian to be better morally, he has to believe he is born a sinner. That is artificial and a setup. Being a morally good person is not valued, because a serial killer could believe and be saved, while an innocent (morally good) that does not believe is condemned to punishment.

[Abiyoyo]

[Just goes to show - Christians aren't a monolithic brand of people - there are different opinions on these spiritual matters.But to splay that out on this site - well, that is just too, too funny.

 

I've seen alot of Christians come and go from these forums; I call it like I see it. I was actually following, replying to this thread when I read your post. It made no sense at all, and I even think another called you out on it; with the 'sin' contradictions. I have to look beyond your embellishment and church lingo just to get to the point of your post.

 

Does this answer your question?

 

[Ouroboros]

Just goes to show - Christians aren't a monolithic brand of people - there are different opinions on these spiritual matters.But to splay that out on this site - well, that is just too, too funny.

Yes, isn't that funny how relative and subjective the "absolute" truth is.

 

Maybe you can start to understand why we don't believe in "absolute" truths or morals, because we look at those who are supposed to be the ones carrying the torch for it, and they can't even agree!

[rayskidude]

Just goes to show - Christians aren't a monolithic brand of people - there are different opinions on these spiritual matters.But to splay that out on this site - well, that is just too, too funny.

Yes, isn't that funny how relative and subjective the "absolute" truth is.

 

Maybe you can start to understand why we don't believe in "absolute" truths or morals, because we look at those who are supposed to be the ones carrying the torch for it, and they can't even agree!

 

I understand that Christians are too often the cause for others not to believe - and that is the fault of the Christians themselves and their churches. But the truth of the Bible is absolute - it's just that the followers are flawed & subjective - Christians are simply sinners saved by God's grace trying to live the way Jesus taught us - and it's a slow learning process.

[Deva]

I understand that Christians are too often the cause for others not to believe - and that is the fault of the Christians themselves and their churches. But the truth of the Bible is absolute - it's just that the followers are flawed & subjective - Christians are simply sinners saved by God's grace trying to live the way Jesus taught us - and it's a slow learning process.

 

What if its the book that's flawed & subjective and not the followers?

 

In any case, there is no such thing as the "absolute truth" and certainly a book cannot be the absolute truth. This book is obviously a product of the human mind and must be interpreted by the human mind. That's why we have thousands of denominations and Christians who can't even agree on the basic necessities of the faith.

[Abiyoyo]

I understand that Christians are too often the cause for others not to believe - and that is the fault of the Christians themselves and their churches. But the truth of the Bible is absolute - it's just that the followers are flawed & subjective - Christians are simply sinners saved by God's grace trying to live the way Jesus taught us - and it's a slow learning process.

 

What if its the book that's flawed & subjective and not the followers?

 

In any case, there is no such thing as the "absolute truth" and certainly a book cannot be the absolute truth. This book is obviously a product of the human mind and must be interpreted by the human mind. That's why we have thousands of denominations and Christians who can't even agree on the basic necessities of the faith.

 

I agree, and will add that our people are not the reason we have a melting pot of Christianity; Paul is the reason

[Ouroboros]

I understand that Christians are too often the cause for others not to believe - and that is the fault of the Christians themselves and their churches. But the truth of the Bible is absolute - it's just that the followers are flawed & subjective - Christians are simply sinners saved by God's grace trying to live the way Jesus taught us - and it's a slow learning process.

Then what use is the Bible, if the interpretations are relative? And what use is it to even say the Bible or God's word is absolute, when it really doesn't mean anything in practical terms? It's like me stating: "There must exist a perfect sandwich." And no one can deny that. It must exist. And I will preach, and proclaim this, and compare every sandwich I eat to this "perfectly absolute sandwich," and criticize everyone who thinks they have a good sandwich, or those who deny the existence of that said sandwich. Does that really give meaning to life? To have a fantasy picture in your head about an absolute text in a book everyone misunderstands?

 

So who is right? You or your Christian friend? If both of you interpret the same passage in the Bible different, who is right?

[Ouroboros]

I agree, and will add that our people are not the reason we have a melting pot of Christianity; Paul is the reason

Actually, it is human nature to be flawed. And humans wrote the Bible. So the Bible, by pure and direct relation to the source, must be flawed as well.

 

This is the reason why many other religious text are said to have been written by God himself, and then given to his prophets, because people know people screw up, and I wouldn't believe a person's text about God, so if I can be made to believe it was written by God himself (the stone tablets), then maybe I can believe the text is absolute for sure. But the Bible wasn't written that way. It is a reflection of a reflection of a reflection of God, which is us.

[MathGeek]

I agree, and will add that our people are not the reason we have a melting pot of Christianity; Paul is the reason

 

Actually, it's a salad bowl (to quote the multiculturalist lingo of today). There is this big bowl called Christianity but there are so many different pieces that go into it (seperate denominations that maintain their forms) without changing the consistencies of the other pieces, therefore it is easier to say Christianity is a salad, not a stew.

[Abiyoyo]

So who is right? You or your Christian friend? If both of you interpret the same passage in the Bible different, who is right?

 

Good point Hans. I think over time; Christianity as Greek philosophy has been evolved into whatever we have wanted it to be. Christianity just ended up with a church, & a different sect on every corner. Christianity has x amount of written documents to support its claim; Greek philosophy the same. The rest is creative imagination; or filling in the blanks. Every question that is raised up to a Christian is reasoned through the Bible. The Bible, is for most Christians; God's word to mankind. It's a vicious cycle; until people start seeing that it is a book, written about God, by people with different agendas. I love my God, and I believe in Christ; but I live truthfully. If it seems that Greek philosophy influenced Christianity; then so be it.

 

Who is right? Nobody. It's all open for discussion until the end of time.

[Ouroboros]

Who is right? Nobody. It's all open for discussion until the end of time.

Which makes "Christian" nothing but a label. I suggest that you do pick up a couple books about philosophy. I think you're ready to enter a universe of thought and insight, much deeper than one religious book.

[MathGeek]

So who is right? You or your Christian friend? If both of you interpret the same passage in the Bible different, who is right?

 

Good point Hans. I think over time; Christianity as Greek philosophy has been evolved into whatever we have wanted it to be. Christianity just ended up with a church, & a different sect on every corner. Christianity has x amount of written documents to support its claim; Greek philosophy the same. The rest is creative imagination; or filling in the blanks. Every question that is raised up to a Christian is reasoned through the Bible. The Bible, is for most Christians; God's word to mankind. It's a vicious cycle; until people start seeing that it is a book, written about God, by people with different agendas. I love my God, and I believe in Christ; but I live truthfully. If it seems that Greek philosophy influenced Christianity; then so be it.

 

Who is right? Nobody. It's all open for discussion until the end of time.

 

At least you are more open-minded and empathetic in your responses than some other Christians I have tangled with here.

[Abiyoyo]

Which makes "Christian" nothing but a label.

 

I think of it more as a huge 'bubble' of misinformed socialites.

[mwc]

Good post - and yes, I agree that God does give or take as He desires and for His purposes. And note that Job - who experienced both great blessings and great loss said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I shall return to the earth. The LORD gives and the LORD takes away. Blessed be the name of the LORD." I believe the main purpose in all that God does is to bring glory to Himself. And part of God's glory is the maturation of His followers. So God also works for our good - and it is good for humans to be humble = to know that God is God and we are not. This failure was the great sin of Satan - in his prideful arrogance he tried to be like God in the sense of establishing his own kingdom with his own followers. What folly!! There can be, by definition, only one Supreme Sovereign Being in the universe. To rebel against an infinitely holy and powerful God can only lead to defeat!!!

Job was rich. He was "allowed" to be made poor but ultimately he was made rich again. And why? To show his "god" was with him. Great example. When "god" isn't with you then you are may very well have your wealth taken away or your family killed off (inclusive in wealth I suppose). But when "god" is on your side just look how you prosper. It just shows for everyone to see. I'm glad you brought up old Job.

 

As for the "fall" of Satan. This is Nebuchadnezzar in the OT. It has nothing to do with any "Satan" beyond using the Latin "Lucifer" in translation and then loosely connecting some unrelated dots. Other Jewish writings name other angels leading the rebellion. This is pure bunk. As fun to read as some other sci-fi/fantasy but nothing to base my life upon.

 

We who are Reformed/Calvinistic in our theology would champion the "sovereignty of God" - that He is in complete control of all things. SO God has designed to purchase for Himself followers from every tribe, tongue, nation, and people. And He will work in their lives to mature them; to teach them humility through loving God & others; to teach them the value of the eternal over the temporal; to teach them to serve others at their own expense and inconvenience - "to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous of good deeds." (Titus 2:14).

So he's "purchasing" these followers from whom? Where does the "payment" go? If "god" is the sovereign, and all things are his, then would he not already own all things by definition? If he doesn't own all things then how did he lose them? When did he "sell" them and to whom? A prior transaction would have had to had taken place in order for this one to be required. He "sold" his "followers" and is now "purchasing" them back. Why? Seems he lacks control.

 

So I agree that God does all He does for a reason - to teach us Who He is, to teach us about His love, to teach us humility, to teach us not to love this world. Now this can be tricky - because God created this world. But now - it's been ruined by sin. And we experience the miserable effects of sin everyday. So though we currently live in this world, we don't love this life, or this world, or this way of doing things in opposition to God. But we do our best to love God & others - and we look forward to the New Heavens and Earth - where there will be no more sorrow, no more tears, no more sickness, no more suffering. It will be as God had originally created the world.

Ever hear of the "Garden of Eden?" I hear that all these things you're telling me that we're supposed to "learn," well, we already knew...and more. What you're saying, really saying, is what I said earlier and was repeated in Job. Your "god" will strip you of what you have and expose you to pain and suffering if you cross him. Once you get back on his "good side" then you may prosper again. You'll get back in that "garden" (so to speak). Isn't that right? It's all a kind of prosperity gospel.

 

We both know that "god" could have simply said to Adam and Eve "I forgive you." After all, we are to forgive not once and not twice. Not even seven times. But seventy-times seven. How many times did YHWH forgive that fateful day? None. Zero. Punishment was swift and forgiveness was nowhere to be seen in that garden. But I'm told that in the end this same "god" will make all things new. So is "sin," this imaginary corrupter, so difficult for a "god" to truly deal with? Not really. A simple act of forgiveness and I imagine that all things would have became just like new. Did that happen? Not according to any texts I have. God did not forgive. He seems incapable. And he uses this inability to "teach" lessons he doesn't even seem able to learn himself. Maybe he should be in class with the rest of us instead of teaching it?

 

And we can only please God as individuals by repenting of our own sins, by recognizing the love of God that has been given to us in the Person of Jesus Christ. He is God Incarnate, Who died in our place to accept the just punishment for our sins. And He rose from the dead with a glorified body, and He ascended into Heaven - where He will receive all His followers. We follow Jesus now - and then we will follow Him into heaven.

 

What a phenomenal plan - to resurrect a world that had been ruined by rebellious sin, to provide a free salvation to all who would humbly ask, to bring out repentant sinners into eternal life, to live in the relationship forever "I will be their God, and they will be My people."

So now the sermon. You've ran out of things to say.

 

So instead of simply forgiving he turns to tricks. We are to forgive those who wrong us without prompting and without strings but not your "god." There must be "repenting." There must be "belief." Only those may be forgiven. But they must be "taught" a lesson of humility first. A level of suffering as it were. Then he must "purchase" them back from some unnamed entity to which he obviously sold them to in a prior transaction. This was intentional on his part. All these things that for us humans should never be done to another human your "god" has done to us. Your reasoning? To bring "glory" to itself. Disgusting. What a tyrant.

 

SO being compared to a field animal in need of training, though humbling, is not far from the mark. In comparison to the Being of God - we're way down that totem pole. Scripture often compares people to sheep - who must be led and protected or they will eat poison weeds or be attacked by wolves. That is the sad reality for us. Thankfully, Jesus is the Good Shpeherd who lays down His lfe for His sheep.

Sheep were sheered. Sheep were slaughtered and eaten. Sheep were sacrificed to a "god." Sheep weren't taken into the house, loved and treated as equals. They were only protected until they became useful in these other areas. They were a commodity. Nothing more. How odd that you are happy that you are "god's" commidity awaiting the day he takes you to market. Telling the other sheep to hold in their crap because that "sin" is ruining his perfect fields and they will be held accountable for their actions. Imagining the day you will sit at the table eating with the rancher as a son instead of the main course. You're fully deluded my little sheep friend.

 

mwc

[centauri]

God leads us thru His written word - the Bible. Thru the Bible we understand how to become a member of the family of God. Though we've all been created ultimately by God, yet we're not in God's family by virtue of our physical birth, we don't automatically follow Jesus. We are sinners by nature, intent on following our own selfish way. But once we have repented of our sin and placed our faith in Jesus as the Christ of God, the Son of God who died for our sins and rose from the dead - and Who will one day call His followers into heaven - then we study the Bible in order to be faithful followers. If we claim to follow God - we must study and live according to His revealed truth. In the Bible, God reveals wisdom for living.

 

The recipe for salvation is not consistent in the Bible, nor is the Bible consistent in many other areas.

When you say "the Bible", you're referring to the mental Bible you've constructed for yourself.

 

Bottom line; God is all-loving and all-powerful.

 

It's your version of God, modified and edited by you.

[Guest Tabuwn]

Good point Hans. I think over time; Christianity as Greek philosophy has been evolved into whatever we have wanted it to be. Christianity just ended up with a church, & a different sect on every corner. Christianity has x amount of written documents to support its claim; Greek philosophy the same. The rest is creative imagination; or filling in the blanks. Every question that is raised up to a Christian is reasoned through the Bible. The Bible, is for most Christians; God's word to mankind. It's a vicious cycle; until people start seeing that it is a book, written about God, by people with different agendas. I love my God, and I believe in Christ; but I live truthfully. If it seems that Greek philosophy influenced Christianity; then so be it.

 

Who is right? Nobody. It's all open for discussion until the end of time.

 

From a semi Christian perspective by a former Christian who is (Myself). I think there is a wave of Spiritual growth underway. I see it everyday in those I come in contact with. There are many whom have awakened to the phenomena of Christ in us. (Our hope for glory) I believe that all the living will one day realize the kingdom within. G-d is surely bigger than our mental concepts of Him. Just as He is bigger than our systems of belief, or even lack thereof. Each of us come to terms with G-ds reality in our own time. When we are ready to 'experience' the kingdom within, we will. When we do, I believe we will then know that if G-d does in fact exist, that He is surely Love, and not found within the pages of an ancient book, but in the deepest depths of our hearts. Whether there is life after death is yet to be seen, but as we progress as a peoples the kingdom within, and as it pertains to life on earth on earth increases.

 

Two cents

 

Tab

[centauri]

Re: people claiming to hear from God. I would not follow anyone who claims to have literally 'heard' from God, because God communicates to us primarily thru the Bible. But if someone says "I pray to God about my decisions, and study to see what the Bible teaches on a certain matter." then I would follow that individual. God does answer our prayers and gives us wisdom to guide our thought processes and our decison-making process; but those are not infallible.

 

That's a very interesting position to take.

The character "Paul", whose writings comprise a large portion of the New Testament Bible, claimed just such a thing.

Paul wrote that he was personally instructed by a celestial being that he assumed was the character called "Jesus".

As I'm sure you're aware, Paul never met Jesus other than in visions or dreams.

If you accept Paul's musings as being the very Word of God, you're following someone that claimed to have channeled a higher being, much as new agers do today.

[rayskidude]

I understand that Christians are too often the cause for others not to believe - and that is the fault of the Christians themselves and their churches. But the truth of the Bible is absolute - it's just that the followers are flawed & subjective - Christians are simply sinners saved by God's grace trying to live the way Jesus taught us - and it's a slow learning process.

Then what use is the Bible, if the interpretations are relative? And what use is it to even say the Bible or God's word is absolute, when it really doesn't mean anything in practical terms? It's like me stating: "There must exist a perfect sandwich." And no one can deny that. It must exist. And I will preach, and proclaim this, and compare every sandwich I eat to this "perfectly absolute sandwich," and criticize everyone who thinks they have a good sandwich, or those who deny the existence of that said sandwich. Does that really give meaning to life? To have a fantasy picture in your head about an absolute text in a book everyone misunderstands?

 

So who is right? You or your Christian friend? If both of you interpret the same passage in the Bible different, who is right?

 

The Bible is absolute truth - and who said that Bible interpretations are relative? There is only one correct meaning for each Biblical passage. So when we study a passage we ask - what is the theme of this particular Biblical book? How does this passage fit into the book's theme? Why is this passage here in the flow of the story? What would the original readers have understood of this passage? What is God teaching us? This is an involved process in which we also need to know the author of the book, the historical setting for its writing, the original language, and the genre of the book.

 

Under this rigorous hermeneutic (the science of interpretation) scholars will arrive at the same interpretation for nearly all Biblical passages - with some monir variations. But oftentimes people are lazy and they don't want to take the time and effort to actually analyze a passage of Scripture. Case in point: Many preachers and other people, including Bill Clinton in some of his speeches, have quoted Proverbs 29:18 based on the old King James Version (which is in British English from the 1800's when the last revision was done), "Where there is no vision, the people perish." and then they exclaim, "As a people, we need to have a vision for the future, a vision for what God can do and what we can accomplish for good, or else without vision we'll just waste away and perish." The English language of the King James is out-of-date for today's people, and their interpretation is wrong.

 

However, for the original Hebrew translated into modern American English the correct translation/interpretation is "Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained." > as in the New American Standard Version. Now the Hebrew word 'vision' refers to a 'prophetic revelation received from God' by His prophet - with the prophet then teaching the people. When this does not happen, the people are left to themselves with no divine guidance and they will each do whatever is right in their own eyes - and the result of this will be chaos. Then the remainder of the verse 18 says, "But happy is he who keeps the law." - teaching that obedience to God's law brings happiness. And so this interpretation fits with the context of the entire verse and with the context of Proverbs chap 29, which contrasts the tragedy of disobedience and sin vs. the blessing of obedience to God's ways.

 

SO that's an example of doing sufficient study to determine the meaning and to enable us to make the application to our lives - and this does indeed bring meaning and joy to daily living.

[rayskidude]

Re: people claiming to hear from God. I would not follow anyone who claims to have literally 'heard' from God, because God communicates to us primarily thru the Bible. But if someone says "I pray to God about my decisions, and study to see what the Bible teaches on a certain matter." then I would follow that individual. God does answer our prayers and gives us wisdom to guide our thought processes and our decison-making process; but those are not infallible.

 

That's a very interesting position to take.

The character "Paul", whose writings comprise a large portion of the New Testament Bible, claimed just such a thing.

Paul wrote that he was personally instructed by a celestial being that he assumed was the character called "Jesus".

As I'm sure you're aware, Paul never met Jesus other than in visions or dreams.

If you accept Paul's musings as being the very Word of God, you're following someone that claimed to have channeled a higher being, much as new agers do today.

 

I was answering a question about which modern day people I would follow. Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the prophets, the Apostles, Paul, etc > these were men of God who wrote as directed by the Holy Spirit of God during periods of revelation, and their visions were confirmed by miraculous powers. But there have been no Biblical books composed since about 90AD. SO regarding people today who claim conversations with or visions of God, heaven, hell, etc. or who claim to have received some sort of special message from God - I wouldn't follow them for a moment - and I would warn others to avoid these guys.

[centauri]

Re: people claiming to hear from God. I would not follow anyone who claims to have literally 'heard' from God, because God communicates to us primarily thru the Bible. But if someone says "I pray to God about my decisions, and study to see what the Bible teaches on a certain matter." then I would follow that individual. God does answer our prayers and gives us wisdom to guide our thought processes and our decison-making process; but those are not infallible.

 

That's a very interesting position to take.

The character "Paul", whose writings comprise a large portion of the New Testament Bible, claimed just such a thing.

Paul wrote that he was personally instructed by a celestial being that he assumed was the character called "Jesus".

As I'm sure you're aware, Paul never met Jesus other than in visions or dreams.

If you accept Paul's musings as being the very Word of God, you're following someone that claimed to have channeled a higher being, much as new agers do today.

 

I was answering a question about which modern day people I would follow. Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the prophets, the Apostles, Paul, etc > these were men of God who wrote as directed by the Holy Spirit of God during periods of revelation, and their visions were confirmed by miraculous powers. But there have been no Biblical books composed since about 90AD. SO regarding people today who claim conversations with or visions of God, heaven, hell, etc. or who claim to have received some sort of special message from God - I wouldn't follow them for a moment - and I would warn others to avoid these guys.

 

This is a completely airtight system you operate in.

If a writer made it into the Bible, then they are official mouthpieces of God, and "God" closed off all official transmissions to humanity after ~90AD.

 

Nothing else matters because the assorted stories in the Bible are all true and accurate because they are found in the Bible.

There are no inconsistencies or contradictions in the Bible, only misinterpretation of scripture.

If the Bible wasn't perfect, then it couldn't be called the Holy Bible, which must be perfect by definition.

The only thing that exists in the way of official communications from God is represented by the Bible, which you know is perfect because your tradition says it is.

You rely on the early Christian fathers to have properly handed down a perfect Bible, via the clerics and operatives of the Catholic Church, which you recognize as being properly divinely inspired when it came to voting the canon of the Bible into existence.

However, the Catholic Church was not divinely inspired in other areas, being that you(in another thread) advocated Martin Luther as a proper teacher when the Catholic Church classified him as heretical.

You know that you've got the "truth" because you've determined what the truth is, based on you theological preferences.

 

Although this system has a superficial appearance of certainty, its foundation rests on subjective assertions, strung together like beads, to conform with whatever a believer prefers to be true.

[Ouroboros]

The Bible is absolute truth - and who said that Bible interpretations are relative? There is only one correct meaning for each Biblical passage. So when we study a passage we ask - what is the theme of this particular Biblical book? How does this passage fit into the book's theme? Why is this passage here in the flow of the story? What would the original readers have understood of this passage? What is God teaching us? This is an involved process in which we also need to know the author of the book, the historical setting for its writing, the original language, and the genre of the book.

Wow... just wow...

 

So, I guess the reason there are more than 30,000 denominations has nothing to do with the difference of interpretation of the Bible?

 

Why do Catholics baptize babies, while some Protestants baptize adults?

 

Maybe I ask, are you supposed to sell all your belongings and give to the poor, and then follow Jesus? Or do you have a different view on this particular idea in the Bible?

 

Is it a sin to work on Sunday, or is it Saturday? Is cooking considered work?

 

Under this rigorous hermeneutic (the science of interpretation) scholars will arrive at the same interpretation for nearly all Biblical passages - with some monir variations. But oftentimes people are lazy and they don't want to take the time and effort to actually analyze a passage of Scripture. Case in point: Many preachers and other people, including Bill Clinton in some of his speeches, have quoted Proverbs 29:18 based on the old King James Version (which is in British English from the 1800's when the last revision was done), "Where there is no vision, the people perish." and then they exclaim, "As a people, we need to have a vision for the future, a vision for what God can do and what we can accomplish for good, or else without vision we'll just waste away and perish." The English language of the King James is out-of-date for today's people, and their interpretation is wrong.

So why does the scholars have different opinions then, if they all interpret it the same? How come the Jesus seminars had to vote and color code the text based on amount of agreement, rather than absolute knowledge? Does Q exist, or is it just a figment of their imagination? How come some scholars believe some of the Epistles were written by Paul and some dispute it? If there is an agreement, how come there is not?

 

Honestly, you don't make sense. If the scholars were in full agreement, then there wouldn't be any debate at all about the interpretations!

 

I have been to probably 10,000 meetings in my life, and I have seen plenty of different ideas of how to interpret many different verses. My experience is obviously not the same as yours.

 

However, for the original Hebrew translated into modern American English the correct translation/interpretation is "Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained." > as in the New American Standard Version. Now the Hebrew word 'vision' refers to a 'prophetic revelation received from God' by His prophet - with the prophet then teaching the people. When this does not happen, the people are left to themselves with no divine guidance and they will each do whatever is right in their own eyes - and the result of this will be chaos. Then the remainder of the verse 18 says, "But happy is he who keeps the law." - teaching that obedience to God's law brings happiness. And so this interpretation fits with the context of the entire verse and with the context of Proverbs chap 29, which contrasts the tragedy of disobedience and sin vs. the blessing of obedience to God's ways.

The original Hebrew Bible? I thought the oldest we have is from some 900 CE, while the oldest Torah is the Greek translation from 300 BCE. So which one are you referring to?

 

SO that's an example of doing sufficient study to determine the meaning and to enable us to make the application to our lives - and this does indeed bring meaning and joy to daily living.

 

I find my joy in family, study, and work.

[Abiyoyo]

But there have been no Biblical books composed since about 90AD. SO regarding people today who claim conversations with or visions of God, heaven, hell, etc. or who claim to have received some sort of special message from God - I wouldn't follow them for a moment - and I would warn others to avoid these guys.

 

Consider this Ray. 2000 years from now people will be considering people's writings today as 'history' or 'historical; which would make people's writings of value in any degree. You would not follow a man declaring to 'hear' from God today as people didn't follow disciples then, or more so the prophets before Jesus. Right?

[MathGeek]

As I said in another thread...Christians correcting Christians on Ex-C.

 

Irony = palpable.

[agnosticator]

rayskidude: The Bible is absolute truth - and who said that Bible interpretations are relative?

 

They must be absolutely relative, otherwise you would be living in a commune after giving all your possessions to the church/commune. I'm sure there are other requirements from god in the bible for you to obey besides this. Such as keeping the sabbath (seventh day according to one of the 10 commandments), working 6 days per week,and watch out for those graven images. There are other things god wants you to obey, but I am not going to get out the bible and search for more.

 

... the people are left to themselves with no divine guidance and they will each do whatever is right in their own eyes - and the result of this will be chaos. Then the remainder of the verse 18 says, "But happy is he who keeps the law." - teaching that obedience to God's law brings happiness. And so this interpretation fits with the context of the entire verse and with the context of Proverbs chap 29, which contrasts the tragedy of disobedience and sin vs. the blessing of obedience to God's ways.

 

The chaos is apparent with all those christians disagreeing as to what god is like and what he requires. All you are doing is following your own sinful perceptions of what you feel god is like and expects from you. Happy is he who obeys his own deceptions.

[rayskidude]

The Bible is absolute truth - and who said that Bible interpretations are relative? There is only one correct meaning for each Biblical passage. So when we study a passage we ask - what is the theme of this particular Biblical book? How does this passage fit into the book's theme? Why is this passage here in the flow of the story? What would the original readers have understood of this passage? What is God teaching us? This is an involved process in which we also need to know the author of the book, the historical setting for its writing, the original language, and the genre of the book.

Wow... just wow...

 

So, I guess the reason there are more than 30,000 denominations has nothing to do with the difference of interpretation of the Bible?

 

Why do Catholics baptize babies, while some Protestants baptize adults?

 

Maybe I ask, are you supposed to sell all your belongings and give to the poor, and then follow Jesus? Or do you have a different view on this particular idea in the Bible?

 

Is it a sin to work on Sunday, or is it Saturday? Is cooking considered work?

 

Under this rigorous hermeneutic (the science of interpretation) scholars will arrive at the same interpretation for nearly all Biblical passages - with some monir variations. But oftentimes people are lazy and they don't want to take the time and effort to actually analyze a passage of Scripture. Case in point: Many preachers and other people, including Bill Clinton in some of his speeches, have quoted Proverbs 29:18 based on the old King James Version (which is in British English from the 1800's when the last revision was done), "Where there is no vision, the people perish." and then they exclaim, "As a people, we need to have a vision for the future, a vision for what God can do and what we can accomplish for good, or else without vision we'll just waste away and perish." The English language of the King James is out-of-date for today's people, and their interpretation is wrong.

So why does the scholars have different opinions then, if they all interpret it the same? How come the Jesus seminars had to vote and color code the text based on amount of agreement, rather than absolute knowledge? Does Q exist, or is it just a figment of their imagination? How come some scholars believe some of the Epistles were written by Paul and some dispute it? If there is an agreement, how come there is not?

 

Honestly, you don't make sense. If the scholars were in full agreement, then there wouldn't be any debate at all about the interpretations!

 

I have been to probably 10,000 meetings in my life, and I have seen plenty of different ideas of how to interpret many different verses. My experience is obviously not the same as yours.

 

However, for the original Hebrew translated into modern American English the correct translation/interpretation is "Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained." > as in the New American Standard Version. Now the Hebrew word 'vision' refers to a 'prophetic revelation received from God' by His prophet - with the prophet then teaching the people. When this does not happen, the people are left to themselves with no divine guidance and they will each do whatever is right in their own eyes - and the result of this will be chaos. Then the remainder of the verse 18 says, "But happy is he who keeps the law." - teaching that obedience to God's law brings happiness. And so this interpretation fits with the context of the entire verse and with the context of Proverbs chap 29, which contrasts the tragedy of disobedience and sin vs. the blessing of obedience to God's ways.

The original Hebrew Bible? I thought the oldest we have is from some 900 CE, while the oldest Torah is the Greek translation from 300 BCE. So which one are you referring to?

 

SO that's an example of doing sufficient study to determine the meaning and to enable us to make the application to our lives - and this does indeed bring meaning and joy to daily living.

 

I find my joy in family, study, and work.

 

I never said that professing Christians didn't arrive at different interpretations - what I maintain is that many people (Christain and non-Christian) have been lazy in their Bible study - and have not done sufficient in-depth study with a proper hermeneutic to determine the correct interpretation. And scholars will have some variations in their conclusions on certain matters - but re: the essentials of Christianity (Triune Nature of God, Deity of Christ, salvation by God's grace thru faith in Jesus' death/resurrection, etc) there will be agreement.

 

Have you ever seen an example of baptizing babies in the Bible? Does the Bible anywhere teach us to baptize babies? Answer to both >> NO. Why do some people do this? Because they have generated rules to their own liking - and have disregarded what the Bible teaches. Christians are not faultless in their Bible studies or lives >> but some (and the Catholic Church in particular - following the example of the Pharisees in the time of Jesus) have taught many things simply to extract money from its followers.

 

We now live in the times of the New Covenant, instituted by the ministry of Jesus the Messiah - so many Old Covenant rules are no longer binding on believers. No sin to work on Sundays - though it's highly advisable to have "off time" for our own rest, our own sanity, our family life, and to devote time to commune with God.

 

I do live a fairly Spartan lifestyle in order to maximize my donations to take the Gospel all over the world; but I have not sold everything. But you must remember who Jesus was addressing in this passage - one who loved his possessions - and that was the bigger issue. Did he love God more? Or his possessions more? You cannot serve God & money.

 

I believe - as do a multitude of conservative Bible scholars - that the Jesus Seminar is populated by quacks. I would put no confidence in anything they say. There is no objective evidience for the existence of Q - it's just a construct of their own subjective theories. Literary/historical (and some textual) criticism is based on certain assumptions not shown to be true.

 

As I said - there can be some level of disagreement on some passages of Scripture - I believe that getting to know God better thru studying His revealed writings is an adventure. Much like any love relationship - where you are captivated by someone - and you want nothing more than to find out more about them - all with an eye to pleasing them and solidifying the relationship further. But there's no presence of blatantly opposite interpretations when sufficient study has occurred.

 

The oldest complete Hebrew OT is the Masoretic Text in St. Petersburg, Russia dated about 900AD. But there are Dead Sea scrolls which contain large portions of the OT - like the entire book of Isaiah, and these are dated 100- 150 BC.

 

I also find joy in my wife, kids, family, friends, golf, weightlifting, studies and work - but the greatest source of joy is God.